sign and signified and more....
Stephanie asks some interesting questions in her previous post. Here are her last two paragraphs:
Okay, I feel I’ve talked in quite a general sense here, but the very idea that language seems to have contradictory functions fascinates me. In one sense, language brings us closer to God, allows us to articulate our feelings, share them with others, but at the same time, I can’t help but think about the distance that words create (can you ever truly express a deep, complex feeling you’re having with words without altering it?). I’m very curious to hear how others feel about this, even on the personal level, if you care to share.
And I thought I was done…one more thought…back to the idea that language creates reality. What about the idea that there is no “ideal” or “divine” on the other side of language? (There is no such thing as the “signified” separate from the “signifier”?) If language creates reality, then how can there be a gap between the language and the concept? Ugh, okay, I’m really stopping here!
I would say that no, you can never describe an experience without altering it. Language, to paraphrase Burke, reflects, deflects, and [something something] reality. Our very use of words creates a human reality (even a idiosyncratic reality?) that is different from any (if it's even possible) "true" reality. Our use of language to describe our emotions changes the way we perceive those emotions.
If I can recall my rudimentary understanding of Derrida for your second question, Stephanie, I think the Derrida says the signifyer doesn't correspond to a signified, but rather suppliments other signifyers, so that each signifyer (word) then defers to the next signifyer. When I think about connecting the signifyer to the signified, I think about how we create categories and divisions, and I think about how culturally constructed those are and how arbitrary those categories and divisions can be, for me, I see that are words are not actually corresponding to things but creating a reality.
For an example of this, we can look at the word "man" when used to describe humanity or personhood. This word has been used in English for centuries and in most Biblical translations. It obviously doesn't match up with "real personhood" (if I can even use that term) because it masks over half the population (women, interesex, transgender, and genderqueer individuals) and serves to create a reality (where male is the default gender). (We can connect this to how we then enact reality. If male is the default gender, then doctors use the presence of a "penis" as the default for a newborn baby's gender. If we look at Deborah Tannen's analysis, which claims that genetically female should be the default and unmarked gender, yet we live in a society where men can usually go "unmarked" but women can never go "unmarked.")
But, I'm way off topic and should stop myself before I go further astray. I should probably link this back to the text of Genesis. Stephanie asks, What does the language tell us about how the author/narrator relates to God/the divine?
One thing that just occured to me is the way the narrator describes 'adam in Chapter 2: "a living creature" (2:7). He also describes the animals in such a way: "whatever the human called a living creature, that was its name" (2:19). I never really noticed before, but I really like that animals and people are both described in this chapter as creatures, and in that animals are attempts by god to be "sustainers" just as woman is, doesn't that make animals and humans, well, on pretty equal footing? (Except that animals are created for humans, so very anthropocentric.)
Something else that just now occurs to me is the order of events. God lays down the law that human cannot eat from the tree of knowledge, good and evil, before creating human's sustainer, woman. Does this mean that when woman exaggerates God's law (3:3), she is exaggerating what God told her, or what human conveyed to her that God told him? It's too bad we can only guess at whether woman is creating a stricter rule or if human had created the stricter rule for her. I think there are radically different readings here (though both convey that humanity has already drifted from God and is already creating their own reality).
Okay, I feel I’ve talked in quite a general sense here, but the very idea that language seems to have contradictory functions fascinates me. In one sense, language brings us closer to God, allows us to articulate our feelings, share them with others, but at the same time, I can’t help but think about the distance that words create (can you ever truly express a deep, complex feeling you’re having with words without altering it?). I’m very curious to hear how others feel about this, even on the personal level, if you care to share.
And I thought I was done…one more thought…back to the idea that language creates reality. What about the idea that there is no “ideal” or “divine” on the other side of language? (There is no such thing as the “signified” separate from the “signifier”?) If language creates reality, then how can there be a gap between the language and the concept? Ugh, okay, I’m really stopping here!
I would say that no, you can never describe an experience without altering it. Language, to paraphrase Burke, reflects, deflects, and [something something] reality. Our very use of words creates a human reality (even a idiosyncratic reality?) that is different from any (if it's even possible) "true" reality. Our use of language to describe our emotions changes the way we perceive those emotions.
If I can recall my rudimentary understanding of Derrida for your second question, Stephanie, I think the Derrida says the signifyer doesn't correspond to a signified, but rather suppliments other signifyers, so that each signifyer (word) then defers to the next signifyer. When I think about connecting the signifyer to the signified, I think about how we create categories and divisions, and I think about how culturally constructed those are and how arbitrary those categories and divisions can be, for me, I see that are words are not actually corresponding to things but creating a reality.
For an example of this, we can look at the word "man" when used to describe humanity or personhood. This word has been used in English for centuries and in most Biblical translations. It obviously doesn't match up with "real personhood" (if I can even use that term) because it masks over half the population (women, interesex, transgender, and genderqueer individuals) and serves to create a reality (where male is the default gender). (We can connect this to how we then enact reality. If male is the default gender, then doctors use the presence of a "penis" as the default for a newborn baby's gender. If we look at Deborah Tannen's analysis, which claims that genetically female should be the default and unmarked gender, yet we live in a society where men can usually go "unmarked" but women can never go "unmarked.")
But, I'm way off topic and should stop myself before I go further astray. I should probably link this back to the text of Genesis. Stephanie asks, What does the language tell us about how the author/narrator relates to God/the divine?
One thing that just occured to me is the way the narrator describes 'adam in Chapter 2: "a living creature" (2:7). He also describes the animals in such a way: "whatever the human called a living creature, that was its name" (2:19). I never really noticed before, but I really like that animals and people are both described in this chapter as creatures, and in that animals are attempts by god to be "sustainers" just as woman is, doesn't that make animals and humans, well, on pretty equal footing? (Except that animals are created for humans, so very anthropocentric.)
Something else that just now occurs to me is the order of events. God lays down the law that human cannot eat from the tree of knowledge, good and evil, before creating human's sustainer, woman. Does this mean that when woman exaggerates God's law (3:3), she is exaggerating what God told her, or what human conveyed to her that God told him? It's too bad we can only guess at whether woman is creating a stricter rule or if human had created the stricter rule for her. I think there are radically different readings here (though both convey that humanity has already drifted from God and is already creating their own reality).
posted by Michael Faris @ 9:30 AM
2 Comments:
At 8:25 AM,
Deacon Chris said…
Nice, I like this.
Though Derrida just makes me tired, or the way we talk about Derrida. Always the same. Shuts down argument rather than opening it up.
But I like this one.
You say it's "too bad we can only guess," but I say "thanks be to God." I think guessing is great, and the awareness that we're guessing, and humility in that awareness, and all playfulness. Which is the real Derrida, in fact (rather than us stolid American interpreters).
At 12:28 PM,
Michael Faris said…
You're right - Derrida was all about playfulness. And I also agree with you, upon reflection, that it isn't a case of "too bad we can't know and can only guess..." because I am in constant struggle to accept and embrace the ambiguous more.
Thank you.
Post a Comment
<< Home